jimmy2s83

I was recently told that the 1982 model F-body Firebird/Camaro had a seam welded chassis where others did not. Also that the later 91-92 models had an additional glue added to the seams but were still not welded.

I have tried to research this but without success. Either I am terrible and finding anything out about this or its another rumor/myth story floating around out there.

Any help would be appreciated.

I ask because I have an 82 that was my first car. While selling a couple of parts cars it was mentioned to me that my 82 was a better one to build for power due to the chassis being more stout. Either way I still plan on building up the 82 but thought it would be interesting if it was indeed true.

Thanks in advance TGO!

RedLeader289

iTrader: (2)

Hm, I don't have information on this, but I'd be interested to know the answer if in fact that's true. sub'd

ROCITUP

82 is the lightest second to a 67. thats true.

TTOP350

iTrader: (8)

82 is the lightest and weakest. If you want a stiff one, use 91-2 bodies. (they do have glue)
Same stuff that's used to hold new truck beds together.

Eric-86sc

iTrader: (18)

I've heard that 82 bodies are stronger and it had to do with the tooling, dies, etc needed to make the body being brand new. The equipment being brand new allows for a stronger body and once the tooling became used the dies were more worn out producing weaker bodies. By 92, all the tooling was pretty wore out and required the glue to make the body strong. I first heard of the 82 strength myth on an early third gen sight and this explanation was brought up. It kind of makes sense but I have no idea if there is any truth to it.

chazman

iTrader: (4)

That's what they were saying back in the day. By '91-'92 the tooling was getting worn and the tolerances were getting sloppy, so they started using the adhesive. As a result, the '91-'92s had the most rigid bodies.

Think about that for a minute. GM made so many 3rd gens that they wore out the tooling. Can you imagine the 5th gen wearing out tooling?

gt4373

Think about that for a minute. GM made so many 3rd gens that they wore out the tooling. Can you imagine the 5th gen wearing out tooling?[/QUOTE]

Over 1.5 Million Camaro's,That's A Lot Of Camaro's,And That Doesn't Include The Firebird Production Totals.

TTOP350

iTrader: (8)

There were changes made to the design through the years, added spot welds, bracing (and weight) that made the cars stronger and better. 1 example is the steering box bracing and internal frame structure to stiffen that area, door bracing is another.
Some redesigns are because the 1st designs are weak and fail others are for increased crash protection/laws.
Tooling wearing out will really only cause tolerances to be off a very little bit, not make the spot welds or car weaker.

navy02ws6

I've heard that the '92 models had the "better seam sealer" that was supposed to help a lot of the squeaks and rattles.

If anything, I'd expect the '82s to be the weakest as they're the first model year, and hadn't had all the real world testing from customers and sorted out problems yet.

okfoz

Is the person that told you this about an 82, also trying to sell an 82.

I do know that there are build quality differences between Van Nuys and Norwood. If you know where to look it can be obvious, other things are not so much.

For example, every Norwood car I have ever seen, the rear hatch does not line up with the rear quarters. The hatch always seems to extend further back by about 1/4" - 3/8".

However I would prefer the Norwood car just because they used better paint and better painting processes that stave off some rust that the Van Nuys cars seemed to be more prone to.

Also FYI, the same machines that made our Norwood cars, were used to make the Chevy HHR and the Buick Rendezvous in Mexico...

RedLeader289

iTrader: (2)

YES. mine is a Norwood car, that is my only complaint!

TTOP350

iTrader: (8)

One side of these cars is a little longer than the other also.

The decklid and quarters not lining up can be fixed fairly easy.

jimmy2s83

No he was buying an 89 Formula and a parts car 88 GTA from me. I mentioned I had an 82 that was my first car that is stored away for a future project. (likely a late model drive-train)
He said it was a good one to build because of better chassis rigidity. I had never heard such so I wanted to confirm. Hadn't had any luck searching on these forums or any other site for that matter.

More of a inquiry to see what the story was.

Seems like its a rumor/myth.

Thanks for all the replies!

8t2 z-chev

I have not noticed anything about an '82 chassis that would make them more or less rigid than '83-91 chassis (82 is not "seam welded")'82 does have the stoutest front bumpers though-good for 5 MPH impact,standard relaxed to 2.5 MPH for '83-up and the later bumpers quite a bit weaker than '82

okfoz

There is one difference between the early 1982 & possibly 1983 and the 84+ Camaros that no one probably notices... The rear quarter panel wheel flair is different for the early cars, IIRC the crease has a sharper line where it meets the quarter panel, more like the front fenders. It is very subtle, and an easy way to tell if a rear quarter has been replaced on the early cars.

If you have a hard top, one thing you can do to stiffen it up is but the T-top door wedges on the car...

John

ROCITUP

so are 82's the year to stay away from? i dont like the 91-92 body too much, just not MY thing.

TTOP350

iTrader: (8)

88 through 92 are your best bets with 91-92s being the best

Gibson

t-top door wedges? please tell me more! i would love to stiffen my car up.

okfoz

Go to a junkyard and look for T-top cars, in the door jamb you will find wedges at the top of the rear part of the door. IIRC you need a T15 or T20 Torx bit to remove them.

The T-top cars would twist and flex, in essence beat the crap out of the door jambs. To rectify this they put wedges at the top of the door to move some of the loads from the T-top structure, which was not really strong, to the doors. I would not know why it would hurt anything on a hard top, I have not tried it, but it should help take some of the load off of the top of the car.

I know one time I did not have my door closed all the way on a T-top car and I went up this driveway that had a curb approach, I swear the top moved an inch. I cannot imagine how much flexing of the T-top cars would have without those.

It will not be like installing SFCs

John

Scorpner

iTrader: (4)

Here is a pic of one in the door jam and another plastic one. IIRC it's a t15 or phillips depending on the car and/or if someone replaced them. lol





Thread I found in the process...

https://www.thirdgen.org/forums/body...-top-door.html